Interveiw With Iser

8/3/2019 Interveiw With Iser

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/interveiw-with-iser 1/19

Interview: Wolfgang IserAuthor(s): Wolfgang Iser, Norman N. Holland, Wayne BoothSource: Diacritics, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer, 1980), pp. 57-74Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/465093

Accessed: 06/08/2009 01:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Diacritics.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/465093?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/465093?origin=JSTOR-pdf



INTERVIEW

WOLFGANG I S E R

Introduction.

My aim in organizing this written interview was to encourage anexchangebetween reader-oriented heoriesdeveloped in the UnitedStatesand at Constance. Thepublicationof Iser'sown translationof Der AktdesLesensprovidesthe occasion. Initially,I sought ourquestions fromthreesources. I asked Norman Holland to take part in this interviewsince his

empiricalinvestigationsof readerresponsesseem to be in sharpcontrastto Iser's abstract theory, and since Iser ratherextensively criticizes the

psychoanalytical model of The Dynamics of LiteraryResponse. WayneBooth's The Rhetoricof Fiction has been a central text for Iser,whoseearlier notion of the "impliedreader"can be regardedas a developmentof Booth's

conceptof the

"impliedauthor."Moreover, he concerns

WayneBootharticulates n his recentCriticalUnderstandingeemed sure to yieldincisive questions about The Act of Reading.Stanley Fish'searlieraffilia-tion with the "ConstanceSchool," set off against the independent and

provocative position on the reader'srelationshipto the literarytext thathe has subsequently developed, suggested a criticalstandpointon Fish's

partthat would lead to a significantexchange.Eachof the three interviewerswas asked to formulatethree central

questions and,so as to avoid misunderstandings,o specify the context inwhich the questions were to be taken. Once all the questions were in, Ichecked them to make sure there was no duplication and sent them to

Iser, who sent back his answers. I then furnished the interviewers acomplete copy of all the questions and answers,offeringthem the oppor-tunity to ask follow-up questions, but none felt that this was necessary.However, Stanley Fish,who had complied with my originalrequest for

concise, pointed questions, was dissatisfiedwith the formthat the inter-view-with the extended questions elaborated by Holland and Booth-had taken; he indicated that he would prefer to withdraw.* But Iser,havingwrittenrepliesto Fish's"Counterstatements,"ndhavingconceivedof them as partof the overallstatement he sought to convey throughthetext of the interview, was reluctant to withdrawthem. Faced with theneed forsome kind of

compromise,Isertook it

uponhimself to

specifythe general concerns articulatedin Fish'sstatements; he then convertedhis answers into comments on these central issues that he-Iser-had

gleaned fromFish'squestions and stated in his own- Iser's- terms.

-Rudolf E. Kuenzli

*Stanley Fish will set forth his position on the work of Iser in an article to bepublished in the Winter 1980 issue of Diacritics.[-Ed.]

INTERVIEW

WOLFGANG I S E R

Introduction.




conceptof the









uponhimself to



-Rudolf E. Kuenzli


INTERVIEW

WOLFGANG I S E R

Introduction.




conceptof the









uponhimself to



-Rudolf E. Kuenzli


INTERVIEW

WOLFGANG I S E R

Introduction.




conceptof the









uponhimself to



-Rudolf E. Kuenzli


INTERVIEW

WOLFGANG I S E R

Introduction.




conceptof the









uponhimself to



-Rudolf E. Kuenzli


diacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980 577777





















In "Literature as Equipment for Living,"for example [The Philosophy of LiteraryForm,

1941], he describes literary works as helping us to select enemies and allies, to

socialize our losses, to ward off the evil eye, to purify or desanctify our worlds, to

propitiate our gods; as consoling and admonishing and exhorting us; as foretelling,

instructing, charting, and praying.

Could one add such talk to what you have done? Or do you see it as in conflictbecause it is so obviously not "aesthetic"? In short, is your relatively emotion-free

account of encounters with texts in conflict with Burke's (or any other) language of

dramatic encounter with authors, or could it serve as a basis for extending into suchmatters?

In thinking about this question I have found myself wondering why you were in

general so chary of affective responses to the text. You seldom talk about the text

arousing any desire except for our interest in its "meaning." The "tenterhooks of

suspense," for example, that Virginia Woolf mentions in her reading of Austen [p. 168]play no significant role in your own analysis; the stimulation of "desires," described in

your quotation from W. D. Harding [p. 158], is also not given much attention-except,of course, the desire to discover a meaning. I don't want to suggest that you never

touch on such matters, only that they play no strong functional role in an analysis that

quite rightly insists on talking about functions.

One might view my trouble here as simply a variant of the first question: Iswhat Isee as a neglect of matters like laughter, tears, fear, horror,disgust, joy, and celebrationinherent to your analysis or simply something that requires a supplemental account,"another chapter"?

(2) I am not at all sure that I have figured out what you mean by the "impliedreader." At times you talk as if you would restrict the term to something like "the

totality of tasks of interpretation required by a given text." At other times you seem toextend it to include "the totality of inferences allowed by a given text." Sometimes the

implied reader spreads over the whole of what is allowed and at other times he

becomes sharply distinguished from either the "fictitious reader" dramatized in the

text, or the flesh-and-blood reader who exists independently of the text, or the idealreader.

Perhaps a re-reading of your book will clear this up for me, but meanwhile I hopethat the following question can be answered within the scope allowed for your replyhere:

Would your conception of the implied reader be underlined, or destroyed, or

enriched, by saying that the reader-in-the-text, at least when the text is what we call

fictional, is always a double figure? He is both a credulous or "pretending" person,and a doubter. The first could be said to accept all the moves required includingfantastic steps, like turning young men into beetles, and incredible beliefs, such as





































































































diacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980iacritics/June 1980 677777















tions, in consequence of which theoretical reasoningshould enable us not only torefine our tastes and differentiate our beliefs, but also to change the questions andanswersof literarycriticism.





--

r-

.IItil

--

r-

.IItil

--

r-

.IItil

--

r-

.IItil

--

r-

.IItil

N

T

ii

T

ii

T

ii

T

ii

T

ii

744444

7z-? _-_--'--z-? _-_--'--z-? _-_--'--z-? _-_--'--z-? _-_--'--

?'Cr. C_r. 1 ? i

-,- , .-,, ,,,(; 'I'

1

(1

?'Cr. C_r. 1 ? i

-,- , .-,, ,,,(; 'I'

1

(1

?'Cr. C_r. 1 ? i

-,- , .-,, ,,,(; 'I'

1

(1

?'Cr. C_r. 1 ? i

-,- , .-,, ,,,(; 'I'

1

(1

?'Cr. C_r. 1 ? i

-,- , .-,, ,,,(; 'I'

1

(1

c\\\\\

-"'I2 ..)r' r

,cr?-C-- r

--UII J

c`-

= '

-"'I2 ..)r' r

,cr?-C-- r

--UII J

c`-

= '

-"'I2 ..)r' r

,cr?-C-- r

--UII J

c`-

= '

-"'I2 ..)r' r

,cr?-C-- r

--UII J

c`-

= '

-"'I2 ..)r' r

,cr?-C-- r

--UII J

c`-

= ''.....

li?ihiB~~~~~~i?ihiB~~~~~~i?ihiB~~~~~~i?ihiB~~~~~~i?ihiB~~~~~~

Documents

Interveiw With Iser